Informatica LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2021

2020000279 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/708,146 05/08/2015 Mohan Sankaran 16-30025-US-2 1168
139791 7590 06/23/2021
Reed Smith LLP
P.O. Box 488 (358838)
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0488
EXAMINER
STORK, KYLE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
gdonovan@reedsmith.com
ptoipinbox@reedsmith.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MOHAN SANKARAN, ANDREW COMSTOCK,
KIRAN BAGEPALLI, GAUTAM H. MUDUNURI, AKIN DIRIK,
FRANK BEIER, MOHINI WETTASINGHE, and IVAN CHONG
____________

Appeal 2020-000279
Application 14/708,146
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–9, 11, 15, and 30–47, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Informatica, LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000279
Application 14/708,146

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “computer executed methods for
displaying data extracted from data sources in a data viewing and editing
environment, and generating suggestions for refinement of data
presentations.” Spec. ¶ 2.
A data profiling module is configured to receive multiple
spreadsheets and create a single composite spreadsheet. The
data profiling module receives a user selection of multiple
spreadsheets and reads the spreadsheets from a storage device.
Typically a spreadsheet has data records arranged in rows, with
columns containing different attributes or fields of data. The
profiling module extracts the data from the selected
spreadsheets and profiles the data with respect to data types and
attributes of the data. At least one matching column is identified
among the selected spreadsheets. The data profiling module
calculates a match metric for the at least one matching column,
and unifies the spreadsheets into a single composite spreadsheet
using the at least one identified matching column. A preview
view of a composite spreadsheet is generated, visually
indicating the at least one matching column, any non-matching
columns between the spreadsheets, and the match metric for the
matching columns.

Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-executed method for previewing a composite
data set, comprising:
retrieving from one or more sources first and second data
sets;
formatting the first and second data sets into a plurality
of columns of data values;
profiling the data values from the first and second data
sets to identify data types and data domains for the plurality of
columns of data values;
Appeal 2020-000279
Application 14/708,146

3
identifying at least one column of the first data set
matching at least one column of the second data set based on
the profiling;
calculating a match metric for the at least one column
matched between the first and second data sets;
unifying the first and second data sets using the at least
one column and a unifying action, wherein the unifying action
is determined based on an overlap between the first data set and
the second data set;
generating a preview view of the composite spreadsheet
showing the first and second data sets unified using the at least
one column prior to committing the unifying of the first and
second data sets into the composite spreadsheet, the preview
view visually indicating the at least one column matched
between the first and second data sets, a plurality of non-
matching columns among the first and second data sets, and the
match metric; and
in response to receiving an indication from a user,
committing the unifying of the first and second data sets into
the composite spreadsheet.

References and Rejection2
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1–9, 11, 15,
30–47
103 McEvoy (US 2012/0173226 A1, pub. July 5,
2012), Raman (Potter’s Wheel: An Interactive
Data Cleaning System, 2001), Weinberg (US
2002/0116417 A1, pub. Aug. 22, 2002), Criss
(US 9,477,703 B1, issued Oct. 25, 2016).

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Non-Final Office Action dated
July 9, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated June 10, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 13, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
(4) Reply Brief dated Oct. 14, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-000279
Application 14/708,146

4
ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has not provided the required rationale for
combining the teachings of McEvoy and Raman to teach “formatting the
first and second data sets into a plurality of columns of data values; profiling
the data values from the first and second data sets to identify data types and
data domains for the plurality of columns of data values,” as recited in
independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br. 5–7.
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see
also Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (“Without any explanation as to . . . why the references would be
combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight
bias that KSR warns against . . . . [W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the
thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the
claimed invention.”).
Further, the USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made” and that articulation
requirement “appl[ies] with equal force to the . . . motivation to combine
analysis.” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments.
Appeal 2020-000279
Application 14/708,146

5
When “motivation to combine . . . is disputed,” the USPTO “must articulate
a reason why a PHOSITA would combine the prior art references.” Id.
The Examiner cites the combination of McEvoy and Raman to teach
“formatting the first and second data sets into a plurality of columns of data
values; profiling the data values from the first and second data sets to
identify data types and data domains for the plurality of columns of data
values,” as recited in independent claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 4. In
particular, the Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have
combined Ramen’s marshalling of data into a spreadsheet with
McEvoy’s spreadsheet processing, with a reasonable
expectation of success, since it would have allowed a user to
marshal data into a spreadsheet, in order to determine matching
contents within the data so that the data may be combined.
Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues:
Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, there would be no
reason for a user of McEvoy to “marshal data into a
spreadsheet” because this marshalling step would only delay
the central function of the McEvoy, table merging with row
reduction. As stated above, once tables are selected by the user
for merging and row reduction and a directive is given by the
user for merger, the merge logic is applied to the tables and a
merged table is produced. See McEvoy, ¶ 16. There would be
no benefit to, or rationale for, introducing an additional step of
exporting the data into a spreadsheet, as alleged by the
Examiner.

Furthermore, it is unclear how the Examiner’s
obviousness rationale relates to the proposed combination of
features relied upon in McEvoy and Raman. In particular, the
Examiner relies upon Raman as allegedly disclosing the recited
limitations of “formatting the first and second data sets into a
Appeal 2020-000279
Application 14/708,146

6
plurality of columns of data values” and “profiling the data
values from the first and second data sets to identify data types
and data domains for the plurality of columns of data values.”
However, the Examiner’s proposed motivation to combine
these two references does not explain why one of ordinary skill
would want to incorporate these features allegedly disclosed in
Raman into the system of McEvoy. It is unclear how the
features allegedly disclosed in Raman would allow users of the
system of McEvoy to “marshall data into a spreadsheet,”
particularly since the tables of McEvoy are already organized
in columns.

Appeal Br. 15–16. The Examiner responds:
McEvoy discloses comparing table contents and merging
matching columns while joining unmatched columns
(paragraph 0008). However, examiner has previously indicated
that McEvoy is not able to compare and other types of data
(see: Office Action dated 9 July 2018, page 4). Ramen allows
for obtaining streaming data from a database exposed via the
ODBC (Open Database Connectivity) API (Section 2.1). This
streaming data is then marshaled into a spreadsheet interface
immediately, without waiting for the entirety of the data to be
obtained, which “is important when transforming large datasets
or never-ending data streams (Section 2.2).”

This is an improvement on McEvoy, which is only
capable of operating on spreadsheet contents, and not streaming
contents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective
filing date to have combined Ramen’s marshalling of data into
a spreadsheet with McEvoy’s spreadsheet processing, with a
reasonable expectation of success, since it would have allowed
a user to marshal non-spreadsheet contents, such as data
streams, into a spreadsheet, in order to determine
matching/non-matching contents within the data so that data
may be combined. This would have provided the user the
additional advantage of removing redundant data from a stream,
thereby allowing a user to conserve storage space.
Appeal 2020-000279
Application 14/708,146

7

Ans. 17–18.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided the
requisite rationale for combing the teachings of McEvoy and Raman. See
Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br. 5–7. In particular, the Examiner’s assertion
that “[t]his is an improvement on McEvoy, which is only capable of
operating on spreadsheet contents, and not streaming contents” (Ans. 17)
contradicts the record, as McEvoy describes “[t]he tables can be populated
with data from different data sources.” McEvoy ¶ 5. Because McEvoy
already includes the feature of populating tables with data from different
data resources, which may include streaming contents, the Examiner does
not adequately explain why one skilled in the art would have modified
McEvoy to add a redundant feature from Raman.4
Further, the Examiner does not adequately explain why “streaming
contents” or “marshalling of data into a spreadsheet” (Ans. 17) are
connected to the specific limitations of “formatting the first and second data
sets into a plurality of columns of data values; profiling the data values from
the first and second data sets to identify data types and data domains for the
plurality of columns of data values,” as such limitations do not include
streaming contents or marshalling data into a spreadsheet. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 424 (“[t]he proper question to have asked was whether a . . . designer
of ordinary skill . . . would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano with a

4 If prosecution reopens, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether
one skilled in the art would have seen the benefit of modifying McEvoy’s
method to include the specific limitations from Raman, in order to provide
more details associated with populating tables with data, and facilitate
identifying matching data via profiling data values.
Appeal 2020-000279
Application 14/708,146

8
[feature from the secondary reference]”). As a result, the Examiner has not
provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” as required by KSR. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 418.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient support for the legal
conclusion of obviousness, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–9, 11, 15, and 30–47 for
similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9, 11, 15, and
30–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11, 15,
30–47
103 McEvoy, Raman,
Weinberg, Criss
1–9, 11, 15,
30–47

REVERSED